LAST week, Rappler’s CEO Maria Ressa fully utilized her Fulbright fellowship for political theater.
She turned the serving of her warrant of arrest into a political spectacle that could rival the day Aung San Suu Kyi was placed on house arrest by Burma’s military junta. But while Suu Kyi was detained for political reasons, Ressa was arrested because a judge found probable cause to indict her in a case of cyberlibel filed by Wilfredo Keng, a private citizen.
Ressa’s international network has been put to good use. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the arrest “outrageous,” then urged “all democratic nations” to condemn it. CNN’s bigwig Christiane Amanpour said the government was “desperate.” Their condemnation was premised on the belief that Ressa was arrested for speaking truth to power. A narrative the Associated Press (AP) tweeted to its 13.2 million followers on February 13: Ressa was arrested “for criticizing Philippine President Duterte.”
Netizens called out Albright, Amanpour and AP’s fake news. The following day, AP tweeted that it deleted that tweet because it was “incorrect.” Ressa said these netizens were receiving “marching orders.” Yes, she is this delusional: She thinks that she’s such a beloved figure that people only hate her because they were ordered to.
And she’s that dense to realize that this condescending attitude she and the rest of her Rappler staff display is fuel to the hostility they receive. I don’t expect Ressa to understand the Filipino mentality that adores “astig” (fierceness) and vehemently detests “angas” (arrogance). After all, she has been an American citizen for most of her life, and regained Filipino citizenship only in 2004.
Ressa lacks the awareness that journalists like her don’t only speak to power, they can also be the power others could and should speak to. Freedom is power. And a private citizen is holding the line at the abuse of power Rappler wielded against him, heartlessly, by an institution intoxicated with power left unchecked for quite a long time.
She speaks about law being weaponized against Rappler. But weapons can either be for defensive or offensive purposes. Law is used as a defensive weapon against Rappler by a private citizen who was a victim of their offensive weaponization of the almost absolute nature of freedom of the press.
In June 2018, Chay Hofileña, the head of Rappler’s investigative desk, commented on the libel case Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th filed against RJ Nieto, the blogger behind Thinking Pinoy. Hofileña said: “Freedom of speech, you say? There are limits when there is malice and when you deliberately cause others undue harm.” That limit Hofileña talks about also applies to them.
And who enforces that limit? It’s the State, through the government, as prescribed by law. That’s why I don’t understand why Ressa and her network thinks it’s shameful that a government arrests her by the virtue of a valid warrant of arrest, stemming from a case meant to enforce the limit that Hofileña talked about.
If Rappler only gave Keng a chance to defend himself either by getting his side or by giving him the right of reply, then perhaps, they wouldn’t be experiencing this current state of affairs. So, what exactly was Rappler’s motivation in not getting Keng’s side? What was Rappler’s motivation in not giving him space to defend himself? Why can’t Rappler allow the person whose reputation they callously destroyed a chance to clean his name through the same platform Rappler used to soil it?
In 2016, in their #NoPlaceforHate article, Rappler went on to define the limits of freedom of speech: it’s not “license to smear reputation and ruin credibility. Nor does it mean the freedom to be irresponsible and to defame.” Yet how many reputations and credibilities Rappler ruined with their freedom of speech?
I was one of them. In July 2017, during a summit of the Global Editors Network (GEN) in Austria, Ressa slandered me, saying I was part of a “fake news network,” an accusation that GEN reproduced on its Tweeter account.
I wrote GEN to avail of the right of reply as stipulated in their Code of Ethics which gives “any person…portrayed in a negative light” in GEN’s publications the right of reply. This right of reply extends to “social network postings by GEN publications staff.”
Emily Kodjo, GEN’s communication director, wrote back, to inform me that they wouldn’t be able to grant me the right of reply. On the basis of this provision on their code of ethics: “Coverage of people or companies in GEN publications should be written as news, not promotion. They should cover the challenges people and companies face as well as their successes.”
How did this provision nullify their right of reply? No idea.
“Maria Ressa’s intervention at the GEN summit during a panel session was done in good faith,” Kodjo replied, “abiding by our Code of Ethics, to describe the challenges encountered by her publication.”
But how could it be done in “good faith” when the accusation has no factual basis? Ressa didn’t present any evidence at all of any fake news I wrote.
Kodjo should have just been honest: Ressa is one of GEN’s board members.
Then and now, Ressa’s political theater has one message: Those she slanders should suffer in silence and must be portrayed as violators of her freedom whenever they speak truth to her power.
E-mail: srsasot@gmail.com
https://www.manilatimes.net/ressas-political-theater/513891/?ref=findshare-recs
She turned the serving of her warrant of arrest into a political spectacle that could rival the day Aung San Suu Kyi was placed on house arrest by Burma’s military junta. But while Suu Kyi was detained for political reasons, Ressa was arrested because a judge found probable cause to indict her in a case of cyberlibel filed by Wilfredo Keng, a private citizen.
Ressa’s international network has been put to good use. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the arrest “outrageous,” then urged “all democratic nations” to condemn it. CNN’s bigwig Christiane Amanpour said the government was “desperate.” Their condemnation was premised on the belief that Ressa was arrested for speaking truth to power. A narrative the Associated Press (AP) tweeted to its 13.2 million followers on February 13: Ressa was arrested “for criticizing Philippine President Duterte.”
Netizens called out Albright, Amanpour and AP’s fake news. The following day, AP tweeted that it deleted that tweet because it was “incorrect.” Ressa said these netizens were receiving “marching orders.” Yes, she is this delusional: She thinks that she’s such a beloved figure that people only hate her because they were ordered to.
And she’s that dense to realize that this condescending attitude she and the rest of her Rappler staff display is fuel to the hostility they receive. I don’t expect Ressa to understand the Filipino mentality that adores “astig” (fierceness) and vehemently detests “angas” (arrogance). After all, she has been an American citizen for most of her life, and regained Filipino citizenship only in 2004.
Ressa lacks the awareness that journalists like her don’t only speak to power, they can also be the power others could and should speak to. Freedom is power. And a private citizen is holding the line at the abuse of power Rappler wielded against him, heartlessly, by an institution intoxicated with power left unchecked for quite a long time.
She speaks about law being weaponized against Rappler. But weapons can either be for defensive or offensive purposes. Law is used as a defensive weapon against Rappler by a private citizen who was a victim of their offensive weaponization of the almost absolute nature of freedom of the press.
In June 2018, Chay Hofileña, the head of Rappler’s investigative desk, commented on the libel case Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th filed against RJ Nieto, the blogger behind Thinking Pinoy. Hofileña said: “Freedom of speech, you say? There are limits when there is malice and when you deliberately cause others undue harm.” That limit Hofileña talks about also applies to them.
And who enforces that limit? It’s the State, through the government, as prescribed by law. That’s why I don’t understand why Ressa and her network thinks it’s shameful that a government arrests her by the virtue of a valid warrant of arrest, stemming from a case meant to enforce the limit that Hofileña talked about.
If Rappler only gave Keng a chance to defend himself either by getting his side or by giving him the right of reply, then perhaps, they wouldn’t be experiencing this current state of affairs. So, what exactly was Rappler’s motivation in not getting Keng’s side? What was Rappler’s motivation in not giving him space to defend himself? Why can’t Rappler allow the person whose reputation they callously destroyed a chance to clean his name through the same platform Rappler used to soil it?
In 2016, in their #NoPlaceforHate article, Rappler went on to define the limits of freedom of speech: it’s not “license to smear reputation and ruin credibility. Nor does it mean the freedom to be irresponsible and to defame.” Yet how many reputations and credibilities Rappler ruined with their freedom of speech?
I was one of them. In July 2017, during a summit of the Global Editors Network (GEN) in Austria, Ressa slandered me, saying I was part of a “fake news network,” an accusation that GEN reproduced on its Tweeter account.
I wrote GEN to avail of the right of reply as stipulated in their Code of Ethics which gives “any person…portrayed in a negative light” in GEN’s publications the right of reply. This right of reply extends to “social network postings by GEN publications staff.”
Emily Kodjo, GEN’s communication director, wrote back, to inform me that they wouldn’t be able to grant me the right of reply. On the basis of this provision on their code of ethics: “Coverage of people or companies in GEN publications should be written as news, not promotion. They should cover the challenges people and companies face as well as their successes.”
How did this provision nullify their right of reply? No idea.
“Maria Ressa’s intervention at the GEN summit during a panel session was done in good faith,” Kodjo replied, “abiding by our Code of Ethics, to describe the challenges encountered by her publication.”
But how could it be done in “good faith” when the accusation has no factual basis? Ressa didn’t present any evidence at all of any fake news I wrote.
Kodjo should have just been honest: Ressa is one of GEN’s board members.
Then and now, Ressa’s political theater has one message: Those she slanders should suffer in silence and must be portrayed as violators of her freedom whenever they speak truth to her power.
E-mail: srsasot@gmail.com
https://www.manilatimes.net/ressas-political-theater/513891/?ref=findshare-recs
No comments:
Post a Comment